Debates of Sept. 27th, 2023

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I paid close attention to the speech by the member for Davenport, and I would like to ask her two specific questions.

First of all, many of the farmers in my riding continue to talk about the carbon tax, and many of them are receiving bills with about $12,000 per month for the carbon tax alone. These are our food producers, so we know this tax is actually applied, because when a person is charged $12,000 monthly, this money has to come from somewhere, which ends up being from the consumer. Will she support getting rid of the carbon tax, knowing that it has horrible implications on the cost of living?

Secondly, in the farming community, there are lots of people looking for housing, especially temporary foreign workers. Will this housing incentive also assist farmers?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the second question first, as it is more relevant to the bill at hand.

On the second question, it will help all Canadians. It will help rural Canadians and urban Canadians. That is because it is meant to be a game-changer. It is meant to incentivize far more building of rental housing, whether it is in an urban setting or a rural setting. As I mentioned before, I quoted a couple of experts who have indicated that this is transformational and a game-changer. I think it will help all Canadians, wherever they live across the country.

On the price on pollution, as we know, we have to decarbonize our economy, and I would say that, largely, experts right around the world agree that a price on pollution is a really great way to reduce our emissions. I would say that the residents of Davenport very much support a price on pollution and very much support us moving, as quickly as possible, to a low-carbon future.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, but it will not have much impact.

When it comes to housing, eliminating the goods and services tax on construction will have no impact on lowering rent. That is a concern that everyone shares. This will have no impact on access to home ownership. More importantly, the critical need right now is for social housing. Again, this will have no impact on that.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I would like to respectfully disagree with him. I had mentioned that I have been on the finance committee for four years. Over the last year and a half, we have disproportionately, and rightly so, spoken about housing and inflation, about how we get started. I will tell members that the rebate of the GST has been one of the top recommendations that have come forward. It is about increasing supply into the marketplace and I think that is going to help overall prices because we are putting so much more supply into the marketplace.

I had also mentioned that I met with a number of constituents in my riding who are trying to build deeply affordable housing. They have indicated that we have amazing programs. We have to make some adjustments to make it easier for them to apply and deal with some irritants, but other than that, we have great programs that will lead to deeply affordable housing for our most vulnerable.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, removing the GST on rental housing is a start. This is certainly something that the NDP has been calling for.

We have heard the Conservatives put forward a proposal of selling 15% of federal buildings and lands, and we have seen what that looks like at the provincial level, with Doug Ford and the Greenbelt. We also saw that in British Columbia with what they did with private forest lands. They sold them off. People cannot access the outdoors anymore in some of those areas.

Will my colleague support legislation to ensure that all federal lands and buildings are not sold but leased, and that they go for non-market housing, so that there is certainty that they do not just end up in the pockets of developers, as we are seeing right now in Ontario with what just happened with the Greenbelt?

We need to make sure that it goes to the people who need it and that it stays in the hands of Canadians.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say a few things. One is that we have introduced 82 billion dollars' worth of programs, and we will, as a government, always be thinking, every single day, of what more we can do to make sure that we are providing housing for Canadians, deeply affordable housing, and the ability of Canadians to buy their very first house.

Every day, we should be thinking and looking at all options. I am open to all options, and I know that our government is as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Housing; the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Carbon Pricing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to express my sadness and shock over events unfolding on the international scene. For several days now, Azerbaijan has been waging a brutal military attack against the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which the people there call Artsakh.

The attack is very serious. Civilians are being bombed, leaving some dead or injured. The Lachin corridor has been blocked by Azeri forces for months. Now, we are witnessing a majority of the Armenian population flee the region for fear of reprisals. Already, most of the 120,000 people living in the area are heading to neighbouring Armenia seeking refuge. My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona and I have written to the Government of Canada, asking it to seriously consider imposing sanctions against the dictatorial Azerbaijani regime. We cannot keep silent about the blatant human rights violations being committed there. The situation bears many similarities to the forced displacement of a civilian population, which is outlawed by international agreements.

Now, let me come back to today's bill. It touches on themes that are central to people's lives. We have been constantly hearing about the severe housing crisis and the cost of groceries for the past weeks and months. It is hurting workers, seniors, students and families everywhere.

I want to take the time to emphasize one point. We are definitely seeing more and more visible homelessness on the streets in Ottawa and Montreal, but there is also invisible homelessness. I have just returned from a trip to Sault‑Sainte‑Marie and Sudbury. Things are just as difficult there. People are grappling with mental health issues and drug addiction. There are people who do not have a roof over their heads, who are on the streets. This crisis is everywhere. It is a homelessness and housing crisis. There are people who desperately need help.

Earlier today, NDP MPs had the opportunity to meet with Olivia Chow, our former colleague who is now the mayor of Toronto. She told us that 10,000 people are living in Toronto's shelters every night. These shelters are overflowing. Hundreds of people are turned away every day. There are people sleeping in church basements.

In Quebec alone, a recent report on housing and poverty from the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain shows that 173,000 households are in core housing need. That means they have inadequate housing or live in overcrowded housing or in poor physical or material conditions that are affecting their health.

About 370,000 Quebec households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Anyone spending more than that is living in poverty. That is the norm, that is the rule, it is 30%. If someone is spending more than 30% on housing, they are living in poverty and are at risk of ending up in a precarious situation. Nearly 400,000 families in Quebec are in this position. Moreover, close to 130,000 households, families and individuals are spending more than 50% of their income on housing. That means they are just steps away from homelessness.

This really illustrates the impact of the Liberals' and Conservatives' decision to walk away from building social housing and co-operatives over the years. What we are seeing right now is the direct impact of that decision.

What is more, rent in Quebec has gone up by 13% in two years, and the phenomenon of renovictions is becoming increasingly frequent. That means that people living in a rental unit in a given neighbourhood whose rent used to increase by small or relatively reasonable amounts have to move because they are being kicked out of their unit. In Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, we are constantly getting messages and emails from people who are desperate, people who are really sad to lose their homes. Right now, it seems as though the government is turning a blind eye to this phenomenon.

Today, we are still seeing the impact of the cuts the Liberals made in 1994. At that time, the Liberals stopped making investments in long-term housing, particularly social housing. The Conservatives were no better. Under Stephen Harper's regime, when the current Leader of the Opposition was a minister, 800,000 affordable housing units were lost. The Conservatives are in no position to lecture anyone. What is more, their solution is pretty transparent. It involves taking public land and selling it to private developers who will use it to make a profit and not to meet people's needs.

The current Liberal strategy is not working, either. All the reports confirm that. All the experts and the community groups working on the ground are saying that the situation is getting worse year after year.

The member for Davenport can keep saying that her government is investing $82 billion in the housing strategy, but the fact is that it is not working. It is failing to meet our extremely pressing housing needs.

Bill C-56 removes the GST on the construction of rental housing, which is a good idea. The reason it is such a good idea is that it was proposed by the NDP. As usual, however, the Liberals are doing things in half measures. The government is giving a bit of a shot in the arm to people willing to build rental housing in order to improve supply. We understand the logic. We need to address the supply side. However, there are no guarantees at all. There is no mechanism or measure to ensure that these homes will be affordable and meet the needs of people in our communities, cities, towns and regions.

Is it possible that this will have no impact on the price of rent? Is it possible that the 5% rebate being gifted will only increase the developer's profit margin? Will we be any further ahead if these developers profit from this gift or from this incentive to build housing which, in any case, will be rented out at $1,200, $1,800 or $2,300 a month? Is this going to help ordinary people or those who have been on waiting lists for social housing? The answer is no. There is still some work to do. We will need to improve this bill.

The Minister of Finance tells us that this measure will help add 30,000 housing units a year. Last year, 270,000 housing units, houses or apartments were built. The CMHC, however, is telling us that we need 500,000 housing units a year. According to my calculations, 270,000 housing units plus 30,000 housing units comes to 300,000 housing units. We still need 200,000 more housing units. This is just a half measure that provides no guarantee that we can help people afford their rent. This is still market logic. The right to housing is not being seen as a fundamental right. The Liberals never talk about it. This bill completely fails to address the fact that housing is a human right, a fundamental right. The Liberals are handing out gifts that will have no impact on the assistance they are trying to provide to the middle class, to workers.

How do we solve this? We need to build affordable housing. That means building housing where the rent does not exceed 30% of an individual's or family's income. It is not particularly complicated.

My NDP colleague from Vancouver East says that we would need a major nationwide construction project in order to build 2 million affordable and non-market housing units, specifically, social housing, co-operatives or community housing. There needs to be an acquisition fund to buy buildings and land and to build housing that meets people's needs. In Vienna, Austria, they have done exactly that. Today, 60% of that city's housing stock is non-market. That is an example worth following. Unfortunately, the federal government is not doing that. None of these ideas are included in the bill before us today. The NDP believes that an acquisition fund is needed to build public housing.

With regard to groceries, we are seeing the crisis unfold day after day. People are making agonizing choices, even having to reduce meal sizes. Grocery prices have gone up 22% since 2020, but not many people have seen their wages go up 22% since 2020. In the meantime, while people are suffering, these big companies are busy lining their pockets. Last year, Loblaws, Sobey's and Metro made $3.6 billion in profits. They are making record profits when people are having trouble paying for their groceries, and the Liberal government is doing nothing.

We in the NDP believe that it is not enough to stabilize prices at the grocery store. Prices must come down. We have solutions to propose. We need to punish the CEOs who are lining their pockets. We need to be able to tax the windfall profits of these major grocery chains, who are using inflation as an excuse to hurt people. The leader of the NDP has introduced a bill that I hope to be able to talk about and that would give the Competition Bureau more power to impose sanctions and investigate. I hope that the Liberal government will follow suit. My colleague's bill contains a lot of good solutions. We have to be thorough and not just go halfway, as the Liberals all too often do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I know that a number of members have raised the issue of non-profit housing. I just want to amplify the fact that this particular legislation would not preclude that from taking place. More importantly, in certain situations, housing co-ops are already exempt from having to pay the GST. The government has supported organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which has built many houses over the years.

The reason I say that is to emphasize the importance of having the Government of Canada, provincial jurisdictions and different stakeholders all come to the table to deal with the true housing situation of Canadians. We all need to play a stronger role in resolving the problem. Would the member not agree?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I find it strange that he is saying that we should be pleased that the bill does not preclude the construction of affordable housing. It would be incredibly ridiculous if the bill precluded the possibility of building social and affordable housing. We need to look at this another way. We need to make sure that this gets done, not just hope that it might.

However, there is nothing in this bill about that. I hope that we will be able to improve the bill in committee because, right now, it seems as though this bill is only a half measure. I agree with my colleague when it comes to collaboration and co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, but we need to harmonize the way we do things because it is really complicated right now. I get the impression that the various levels of government are all creating obstacles.

I do not want to get into who should be blaming who, but we need to all sit down at the table to find solutions with community groups and experts so that we can build truly affordable housing.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. Clearly, he is just as alarmed as we are about housing. In Quebec, we will need 1.1 million units of affordable social housing by 2030 and Quebec is at the top of the list for measuring the extent of the problem in Canada.

Does my colleague not agree that on the one hand, we should vote in favour of this bill and improve it in committee, while on the other hand, we are dealing with an emergency as serious as climate change?

Faster and more generous action must be taken immediately to change things if we want to achieve minimal results by 2030. Winter is coming and it does not bode well at all. I do not think that getting caught up in the details is among our citizens' concerns right now. We are really into something else. We must take much more meaningful and much more urgent action.

What does my colleague think?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's analysis and how she sees things regarding the current emergency.

We see the situation deteriorate every July 1. Homelessness is getting worse not only in Montreal, but throughout Quebec. I am convinced that my colleague is seeing this in her riding as well. It is an absolutely deplorable phenomenon.

In Montreal, 23,000 people are waiting for social housing. It will take 7 years, 8 years, even 12 years for them to get it, and in the meantime, they are living in precarious situations. They are suffering. They are living in poverty. Yes, it is an emergency.

Some fairly simple things can be done. Federal public lands should be used to build social and affordable housing, as well as co-operatives. These are lands like the Peel Basin in Montreal, which already belong to the federal government. There is no need to even buy it. We just need to be able to get shovels in the ground to build genuinely affordable housing.

Let us start with that. Let us reject the Conservatives' idea of selling public land to private developers and let us instead build public housing on public land.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a moment to be able to get up and speak to Bill C-56, an issue that I know matters to all of us here in the House.

On September 21, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. This government has consulted and worked alongside the public to establish a tangible solution to alleviate this burden for hard-working Canadians. In doing so, we have arrived at Bill C-56, which would establish the affordable housing and groceries act.

This act is primarily focused on taking a stand against the cost of living crisis and delivering on the government's agenda of making life more affordable for all Canadians. We envision this act would be welcomed by all members of Parliament as it addresses many of the problems our constituencies have raised, by making life more affordable. This act does nothing other than endorse that objective, which is one we all care about.

In our public consultations on addressing the cost of living crisis, we received repeated requests to tackle the rising cost of groceries. The government fully understands that higher prices have made life more challenging for many Canadians and their families. I think we all know that because all of us go to grocery stores. We are surprised at the markup on so many items, as well as the tremendous profits our grocery companies are making on the backs of all of our families.

In May, a young lady from a neighbouring constituency reported that she must leave her home near Jane and Eglinton at 6:00 a.m. to commute nearly an hour to the Fort York Food Bank, and wait additional hours to shop for her groceries. She does this in the hopes of providing food for her children, ensuring they do not go to school hungry, and also to have a hot meal ready for them when they come home. It is very sad that, in 2023, in Canada this is happening.

Today, we are introducing a solution that will hopefully help her and prevent other Canadians from enduring this hardship. Over the past 12 months, we have consistently fought inflation effectively. We have managed to reduce inflation to 4%, almost two basis points lower than all 33 OECD countries, but we need to continue to drive it down even further. That is why last week, we summoned the CEOs of Canada's major grocery chains to Ottawa to devise a plan to stabilize grocery prices by Thanksgiving or face consequences if they fail to do so.

It is quite a challenge to attempt to do this, but I think it is important that the government take to task the different companies so they get a better understanding. They are reaping the profits on the backs of everyone else. They need to be reducing prices as much as they possibly can because Canadians are suffering as a result of what they are doing. If they fail to provide a plan by Thanksgiving, then the government will use whatever tools it has in the tool box to force them to do that.

The opposition leader and his one-liners will not support Canadians, but our effective measures, we hope, will. Finding ways to reduce the cost of living is no easy task. A relevant adage runs along the lines of, “If you don’t miss two or three planes a year, you are spending too much time in the airport.” This government understands that, and that is why it is exploring ways to address the affordability crisis without stifling or controlling the market.

In 2022, our government passed significant legislative amendments to the Competition Act, including provisions to combat price-fixing with some of the world's highest penalties. Since then, we have launched a comprehensive review of the Competition Act and engaged in public consultations with the aim of modernizing Canada's competition framework.

Our government is now introducing amendments that would prevent large business mergers with anti-competitive effects, empower the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies, and halt anti-competitive collaborations that harm small businesses, particularly small grocers. Our government has also bolstered the bureau's enforcement capacity by increasing its funding by $96 million. There have been decisions made in the past by the Competition Bureau that did not align with the message we are attempting to deliver today.

Taking this feedback into account, we have removed the efficiencies exception from merger review. As a unique feature of Canadian competition law, the efficiencies exception currently protects from state intervention mergers that would harm competition, as long as the efficiency gains they generate offset the harm to competition. All of these are very important steps to take to ensure competition is healthy and that there is actually more competition in Canada.

The provision has been a long-standing focus of criticism, often cited as an example of the act’s ineffectiveness and poor outcomes. Many pointed out that the law focuses too narrowly on calculating efficiencies that benefit specific firms over the short run, which, in turn, enables industry concentration and consumer harm over the long run. Again, this is exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening.

Through this initiative, the government proposes to repeal the exception, following which an anti-competitive merger could now be remedied by order of the Competition Tribunal, notwithstanding the efficiencies generated. Abolition of the defence puts competition first and brings Canada in line with international norms.

Our government will continue to work on affordability for Canadians and promote a marketplace that would allow our economy to grow. Through various measures, we provide more authority to the Competition Bureau to better understand anti-competitive mergers that limit choices for Canadians and block competition that restricts Canadians' options.

This proposed package comprises carefully selected areas that could directly contribute to addressing the most immediate concerns, while the government continues to consider further reform proposals to be introduced in the near term through future legislation.

A negation of our constant fight against inflation is the rising cost of rent, which continues to make life increasingly unaffordable for people. We have people throughout our country who are gouging renters and making it extremely difficult to make ends meet for many Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.

This act seeks to take concrete steps to deliver real-time relief to renters from coast to coast to coast. In these efforts to do this, we will be incentivizing housing unit construction. We are enhancing our GST rebate model, currently at 36%. We will be increasing it to 100%, effectively removing GST from construction costs for new rental units intended for long-term renting, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences.

We know that has already had a big response back from the development community. Yesterday a developer indicated he was going to build 5,000 rental units and would have them in the system very quickly.

The measure also removes a restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, like universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profit organizations, that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing are permitted to claim the 100% GST rental rebate.

This will accelerate much-needed rental housing builds across Canada. This enhanced GST rebate would apply to projects beginning on or after September 14, 2023, up until December 31, 2030. All projects in this timeline must be completed by December 31, 2035.

This rebate will only apply to new builds and not renovations, solely to incentivize supply and fight to bring down the increase in rent costs.

I hope Canadians see an evident and comprehensive response from the government to address the current cost of living crisis affecting us all. This bill presents the most logical steps towards ameliorating the standard of living for many Canadians and keeping us on track to become one of the top G7 countries in reducing inflation. If that is something this House seeks to accomplish, and I know it does, there is no valid reason to oppose this bill.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑56 is certainly very interesting. The discussions that have been held so far with various companies and major food distributors are also, on the whole, interesting. We will just have to wait and see.

What I like about Bill C‑56 is that its purpose includes limiting the action of conglomerates. I will name one that is known by everyone. We have seen the big chart on social media many times: it is Nestlé, which sprawls out everywhere. We want to avoid conglomerates.

However, they do exist. We want to limit them, but we tend to forget that, basically, the people who feed us, the 3% who feed 100% of the population, that is, the farmers, receive nothing more, while prices increase.

What is the government's solution to the fact that those who feed us cannot even earn a decent salary?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly the government is very concerned and investing a lot of money in opportunities in the agricultural community to ensure that farmers can have more than just a comfortable living, but that they can have a good quality of life. We know many of the farmers have their own families that intend to take over their farms when they retire. It is important that the farming industry continues to be supported and that we do everything we can to assist it. The government clearly is investing a lot of money in the whole agro community that continues to supply a variety of funds and additional support.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleague across the way with platitudes for farmers. The real question has been asked multiple times in this House in different ways. For farmers who must hire temporary foreign workers and create housing and shelter for them, will those farmers qualify for the GST rebate on the housing?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the whole issue is how we need to bring in foreign workers and temporary workers to be able to help pick the tomatoes, cucumbers and all the wonderful stuff we enjoy every day. Finding Canadians to do that is very difficult, so we all know that temporary foreign workers are a very important part of our economy. They have to be treated fairly, they have to be treated appropriately and they have to have decent housing. We know with the past practices we have seen, they lack all of those things. I think a variety of pieces of legislation have been put forward in different ministries that are going to ensure that when workers come they are treated fairly, they are paid appropriately and they are also housed. Whether that will fit into the GST requirements, I do not know. It is a new announcement, but I certainly would hope that there is whatever is required to ensure those workers who are feeding us every day get the support they need.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier one of the member's colleagues had talked about the bill as something that would be “transformational” and so critical, yet I found that a bit hyperbolic, considering we know this is a good first step, but only one of so many that are needed, in terms of housing, affordable housing and much-needed housing in this country. Even economists from RBC are saying that this is one step to improve housing stock, but that it would do nothing to lower rents in the short term.

As such, I would like to hear from my colleague what the government is planning to do to directly support low-income Canadians so that they can pay their rent.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we should fool ourselves, and we should not be over the ceiling with anything. These are initiatives that are moving forward. I hope they will be able to materialize very quickly, but I think we have to be realistic. This is legislation that is coming in now. The needs of our communities are out there today, and there are people out there who are homeless and people in low-income families who cannot find housing because they tripled the rents that are required. I would like to see there be some rent controls in the systems that would prevent the doubling of rent.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, right now, far too many Canadians are sitting around their kitchen table with their head in their hands, saying, “What do we do now?” They are filled with anxiety, fear and apprehension about what the future holds, and it is no wonder. As inflation continues to rise, everything continues to get more and more expensive. Young parents, working families, seniors and students are seeing their budgets stretched, and each dollar is not going far enough. This is causing most Canadians to feel a profound sense of hopelessness.

There is nothing more they can do to make things easier. There is nothing more they can do to afford a home of their own. There is nothing more they can do to ensure a better life for their children. They cannot take on any more extra shifts, a side hustle or a better-paying job. There are only so many hours in the day, and whatever extra income they make is immediately evaporated by price increases and tax hikes. Whatever they take home will make virtually no difference toward an achievable down payment on a home of their own. They cannot look for any more ways to save. They can cut back only so much, and at a certain point it becomes unaffordable just to put food on the table or gas in the car. There is no longer any money left over to save toward goals like home ownership, starting a small business or children's education.

Canadians who have worked hard and made sacrifices deserve better than to be left feeling hopeless because of our country's economic situation. They deserve better than to fall farther and farther down each rung of the income ladder, descending from middle class to poverty, and some even farther. They deserve to know that their government is ready to do whatever is necessary to address the cost of living crisis in Canada.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has shown, time and time again, that it is completely out of touch with the day-to-day realities faced by Canadians. It is unable to step up and take responsibility for the situation facing our country, the situation for which the government is directly responsible. To the Liberals, out-of-control inflation is a global phenomenon and not the result of eight years of uncontrolled inflationary spending. Instead of changing course or finding solutions, the Liberals are always looking for a scapegoat. To them, it is far easier to find someone else to blame than to do something that will actually address the staggering cost of fuel, groceries, rent and mortgages.

This is clear once again, based on the contents of Bill C-56, which is supposed to be the Liberals' comprehensive affordability bill to address high grocery prices and rental prices. The proposed legislation sends a message from the Liberals to every Canadian who is feeling hopeless and is struggling to afford the most basic of necessities. What is that message? It is that the government does not care about how hard things have become and that, given the lack of concrete measures in this bill, the Liberals are not serious about making life more affordable.

Since last year, the cost of groceries in Canada has gone up 6.9%. The cost of food is up 18% since 2020. No matter how they look at it, Canadians are paying more and more each month to feed their families. However, Bill C-56 would do nothing to lower food costs for Canadians by addressing the primary reason why grocery prices are increasing: the Prime Minister's carbon tax. The Liberals' expensive carbon tax makes everything more expensive. It affects the entire supply chain from farm to plate: the farmer who is taxed to grow the food, the trucker who transports it, the store that sells it and the family that buys it. After eight years, everyone is paying more and hurting more as a result. Because of the carbon tax, it is now cheaper for Canadians to buy onions that were grown and packaged in Mexico and transported across North America than it is to buy the exact same onions that were grown and packaged here in Canada. It has become unbelievable.

We know that Bill C-56 would not address the most significant driver of food prices in Canada, but what would it do? In Bill C-56, there are measures to ensure increased competition in the Canadian marketplace. Some of these common sense measures were introduced by Conservatives earlier in the year. We support efforts to improve economic freedoms of Canadians through increased competition. However, the massive market share held by Canada’s biggest grocers, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, is a problem that has been decades in the making. Even if the bill were to become law tomorrow, no Canadian would see their food bill go down. In fact, in the government’s press release for Bill C-56, it admitted that its goal is to stabilize food prices, not lower them.

Just last week in the House, during question period, the Prime Minister said he was glad the rebates Canadians received cancelled out all of the increased costs his government is responsible for putting on Canadians, but that is just not good enough. Under the Prime Minister, high grocery bills are here to stay. That is the difference between this tired, corrupt, out-of-touch Liberal government and Canada’s common sense Conservatives. We believe that the current status quo is not acceptable. That is why Conservatives would lower costs for Canadians by axing the carbon tax and by bringing home more powerful paycheques that would buy affordable food once more.

We know that the government never knows where the puck is going. As with so many other issues, this is the case with the housing crisis facing our country. The government is a day late and a dollar short. The average rent in Canada has now increased by 6.5% since 2022. The costs of mortgages, rent and down payments have doubled, and nine in 10 young people say they will never be able to afford a home. After denying there was a problem and doing nothing for far too long, the Liberals have now proposed in Bill C-56 to remove the GST from new purpose-built rental housing. While this is a step in the right direction after years of broken promises, it is far too limited in scope to make enough difference for too many Canadians who have seen their dream of owning a home shattered.

As part of the leader of the official opposition’s comprehensive plan to build more homes, Conservatives have pledged to remove the GST on the building of any new homes with rental prices below market value. The Liberal rebate proposed here would make it easier for developers to build more expensive homes that only the ultrarich can afford.

I often say that my primary responsibility and the responsibility of the official opposition is to make the government the best it can be. As a Conservative MP, I take this job seriously. While it is good to see some of the measures Conservatives have advocated for incorporated into this bill, it ultimately does not go far enough. Canadians want more action. Bill C-56 shows that the Liberals are not taking housing and affordability issues seriously, and it is just another confirmation for Canadians that the best the Liberal government can be is just not good enough. As more powers of sale take place and as the lines get longer at the food banks every day, the Liberal approach is not working for regular people.

I am reminded once again, just as I was when the government brought in its budget a few months ago and I looked through the first pages, that the tired Liberal government no longer has a vision. There is no vision for this country. Canada should be a world leader, not an international embarrassment. We should be at the forefront of so many sectors, like agriculture and advanced manufacturing, not lagging far behind. We should be a country that can ensure that its citizens have a roof over their head. That is the most basic expectation we can have, but the Liberals have failed in this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about inflation on groceries and that the Conservative Party supports competition, yet when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government with Stephen Harper, that is when we saw the merger of Loblaws and Shoppers. Today, combined, they make up, I think, close to 40% of total grocery sales. There was actually a reduction of competition when the leader of today's Conservative Party was in government with Stephen Harper, yet they say that they support competition. It is somewhat weird to be hearing that. The member says we need to get away from the price on pollution, yet Erin O'Toole, another leader of the Conservative Party, said we should have a price on pollution.

Why should Canadians trust the Conservative Party of today?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say two things to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

First of all, the carbon tax relief would be instant for Canadians. The Liberals looked at where they were in the polling, and, all of a sudden, we have Bill C-56. Let us rush, rush again. I would also say, to bring up housing because it is so important in my riding, the Liberals have had, think about it, eight years to build houses. I know there are a number of ridings across Canada where people are living in tents. The snow is about to fly. Here we are with Bill C-56, and the snow is about to fly in two months. Are we going to bus people to Florida?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a lot about the carbon tax, although he should have focused on Bill C-56. I will elaborate on this because, lately, many Quebec Conservatives have said that there is a second carbon tax that applies in Quebec. From what we understand, this is not true. I am sure Quebec Conservatives would never knowingly state falsehoods, so I think they must not be informed. They did not do their research and did not make a meaningful contribution to the debate.

What we have is actually a regulation that requires oil companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but with billions of dollars in subsidies to help them do so. Some say that there will still be an added cost at the pump.

Is my colleague saying that the Conservatives are protecting the record profits of oil companies that, in turn, pass the cost of all that on to ordinary Canadians?

Instead of protecting ordinary Canadians, are the Conservatives protecting oil companies’ record profits?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to make my colleague understand.

In York—Simcoe, people feel that they are on the outside looking in. They are paying the carbon tax, and right now they feel like they are subsidizing China to produce. They are looking around and saying to me, “Scot, we have got onions coming in from Egypt and Morocco. We are losing our competitive edge internationally.” This has got my farmers very worried. The government could have passed Bill C-234 for farmers, and that would have made a huge difference to grocery prices. Farmers are going to have to dry their grain and their beans. Half of my riding is on propane, half on natural gas. We want the infrastructure, and the carbon tax is not working for the people of York—Simcoe.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard that the Conservative leader wants to sell 6,000 government buildings. We know what that looks like, when the private sector gets involved with government. We just saw Doug Ford's government try to sell off the Greenbelt in Ontario, which would have amounted to $8 billion going to a handful of developers, with no assurances that the housing that would have been developed would have been affordable.

There is nowhere in the world that the free market has solved an affordable housing crisis. Does my colleague agree that public land should be in public hands and that any buildings used for housing should be leased out and in the hands of the public for non-market housing? Will he condemn the—